[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Planning: Minimum System Requirements

> OK, I'll be more specific -- making decisions that actually MEAN
> something. The only spec issue that affects how the real work is done is
> whether '9x is supported.


> Once that's decided, minimum CPU, RAM... that's just subjective fluff.

It's minor, so what.  It flows primarily from the previous requirement
and it sets a starting point.  It took 10 minutes and means that nobody
is going to try optimizing for a 386.

> The
> minimum spec is a version of Windows that the project supports, and a PC
> that will run it. At the very bottom end it will be dog slow. At what
> point will it start being useful? A matter of opinion, and it's pointless
> trying to set a fixed point. Say we settle on the NT line from v4 up --
> some people will be able to do useful work with a 386 and 16MB.

But that was the point!  By deciding our target "market", we don't have
waste time even worrying about the older machines.  It doesn't matter
if some people do useful stuff on it or not; they won't be doing it
using this project.

> > I believe so, too.  I would like to get some of this done and can do a
> > fair
> > amount in many respects, but I don't know enough about the base system to
> > put that together.  Once that is done and the system becomes self-hosting,
> > then things can really get moving, but getting to that point is going to
> > be difficult.
> Yup, and you won't get any closer by talking about hardware specs.

Nobody is talking about hardware specs except you.  We finished that
discussion a week ago after a couple days (in which is was done in
conjunction with the Win2k/XP+NTFS issue that is important).

                                 ( bcwhite@precidia.com )

      Relationships go through seasons.  Winter often comes before Spring.

Reply to: